Land Rover Range Rover 1995 vs Toyota Land Cruiser 1996
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Diesel | 3.0 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 HP | 125 HP | |
| Torque: | 270 NM | 295 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 17.5 seconds | 14.9 seconds | |
|
Toyota Land Cruiser is a more dynamic driving. Land Rover Range Rover engine produces 11 HP more power than Toyota Land Cruiser, but torque is 25 NM less than Toyota Land Cruiser. Despite the higher power, Land Rover Range Rover reaches 100 km/h speed 2.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 11.4 | 11.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.9 l/100km | 11.2 l/100km | |
|
The Toyota Land Cruiser is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Land Rover Range Rover consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Land Cruiser, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Land Rover Range Rover could require 45 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Land Rover Range Rover consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Land Cruiser. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 90 litres | 90 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 780 km in combined cycle | 810 km in combined cycle | |
| 930 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
| 750 km with real consumption | 800 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 480'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Toyota Land Cruiser engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 13 years | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Toyota Land Cruiser might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Land Rover Range Rover engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.71 m | 4.73 m | |
| Width: | 1.89 m | 1.73 m | |
| Height: | 1.82 m | 1.86 m | |
| Land Rover Range Rover is 2 cm shorter than the Toyota Land Cruiser, 16 cm wider, while the height of Land Rover Range Rover is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 742 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1150 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.9 meters | 11.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Range Rover is 0.5 metres more than that of the Toyota Land Cruiser, which means Land Rover Range Rover can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 3`500 | 2`680 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 3400 | 7000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover has
|
Toyota Land Cruiser has
| |